2026:JHHC:20640 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.353 of 2019 --------- [Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 31.01.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in G.R. (POCSO) Case No.16 of 2017, arising out of Sonua P.S. Case No.10 of 2017] --------- Raju Mukhi, aged about 30 years, S/O Amar Mukhi, resident of Village – Sanowa Narangsai, P.O & P.S – Sonua, District – Singhbhum West. ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent --------- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, A.P.P --------- Order No.08/ Dated: 13 th July, 2026 1. Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Gautam Rakesh, learned counsel for the State. 2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in G.R. (POCSO) Case No.16 of 2017, arising out of Sonua P.S. Case No.10 of 2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1,000/- (One thousand) and in default thereof, to further undergo S.I for one month. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is based on the written - 1 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.353 of 2019 2026:JHHC:20640 application of the victim (P.W.-3), stating therein that she lives in the house of Poulus Lomga, on rent along with her husband. Her husband had gone to his village on 02.03.2017 and while she was alone, the accused Raju Mukhi S/O Amar Mukhi, finding her alone entered in her house armed with Knife at about 02.30 P.M., and intimidated her by pointing knife. He thrown her on the ground and committed rape upon her and also loosen her Pyajama. She made hue and cry, then her nephew Xabrius Bhuinya reached there and then accused left her and fled away. Since her husband was not in the house, therefore, she could not reported the matter on the same day to the Police Station. On 04.03.2017, when her husband came from his village then she reported the matter along with her husband to the police station for further action. On the basis of above written report of the victim, Sonua P.S Case No.10 of 2017 dated 04.03.2017 has been registered under Sections 376/ 511 IPC, against the present appellant. The police, after completing the investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 376/ 511 IPC and Sections 4/ 6 of the POCSO Act and the trial court has framed the charge on 26.07.2017 under Sections 376/ 511 IPC and Sections 8/ 12/ 18 of the POCSO Act, against the present appellant. Thereafter, the case has committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellant has pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried and accordingly, the trial has commenced. - 2 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.353 of 2019 2026:JHHC:20640 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether 07 witnesses and their depositions, in short, are as follows:- 5. P.W.-1, Poulus Lomga, is the land-lord of the informant. He has deposed that on the date of occurrence he had gone to his old house and the victim informed him by phone about the incident. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he knew the accused from four years and at the time of occurrence, he was not present. 6. P.W.-2, Dr. Jayshree Kiran, is the the doctor, who has examined the victim and found no external or internal injury on the person of the victim. She prepared the medical report and put her signature on it (Ext.-1). In cross-examination, she has admitted the age of the victim as 18 years. 7. P.W.-3, xxx, is the victim herself. She has supported the prosecution case. She has stated that the occurrence took place one year ago and when she was alone, the accused has tried to commit rape upon her on the point of knife. After reporting the incident to police, she was taken for medical examination. He has stated her date of birth as 13.09.1999. In cross-examination, she has stated that she cannot tell about the date of occurrence. She has admitted that there were 4 to 5 houses situated near the place of occurrence and when she screamed only her nephew came - 3 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.353 of 2019 2026:JHHC:20640 there and thereafter the accused fled away. She has admitted that she does not know the accused and no one saw the incident. 8. P.W.-4, Bondela Lugun, is the husband of the victim and he has also supported the prosecution story. He has stated that at the time of occurrence, he had gone to brought rice from his village and his wife was alone in the house. She informed him about the incident on phone. In cross-examination, she has deposed that he had not seen the occurrence and her wife has told him about the incident. 9. P.W.-5, Narun Boipai, is a hearsay witness. 10. P.W.-6, Subhash Chandra Mahto, has been declared hostile. 11. P.W.-7, Satyendra Narayan Lal, is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has investigated the matter. He has recorded re-statement of the informant and her husband. He has inspected the place of occurrence. During investigation, he has also recorded the statement of other witnesses. He has arrested the accused and taken the victim for medical examination as well as for statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He has submitted the charge- sheet against the accused person. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he had not taken the statement of any witnesses who reside near the place of occurrence. 12. The defence has also produced two witnesses, who - 4 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.353 of 2019 2026:JHHC:20640 have been examined as D.W.-1, namely, Sangita Karwa and D.W.-2 namely, Bhola Nath Mukhi. 13. On consideration of above materials on record, the trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence under Sections 8/ 12/ 18 of the POCSO Act and found the appellant guilty only for the offence under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him, as stated above. 14. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant, while referring to the evidence of the witnesses available on record, has submitted that :- (i) the victim, in her cross-examination, has clearly stated that she does not know the accused, but still the accused has named in the F.I.R. Thus, it seems to be a false accusation made by the victim. (ii) there is no corroborative material available on record, as the victim herself has stated that there was no eye witness to the incident. (iii) the medical evidence also does not support the allegation. On the above basis, prayer for acquittal of the appellant has been prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has - 5 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.353 of 2019 2026:JHHC:20640 opposed the prayer of the appellant stating that the victim has clearly stated regarding the commission of crime committed by this appellant. 17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that :- (a) the victim has clearly stated that she does not know the accused person, but he has been named in the F.I.R. (b) there is no statement except the bald statement of the victim. (c) the appellant has remained in custody for about two years and seven months out of three years maximum sentence as imposed by the trial court. 18. Thus, it appears that it is a case of no evidence as the victim was not aware regarding the identity of the accused- appellant and still he has been named in the F.I.R and further, there is no corroborative materials. 19. In that view of the matter, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in G.R. (POCSO) Case No.16 of 2017, arising out of Sonua P.S. Case No.10 of 2017 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 20. In the result, the appeal stands allowed and accordingly disposed of. 21. The appellant is on bail, hence, he is discharged from - 6 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.353 of 2019 2026:JHHC:20640 the liability of bail bond. 22. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 13th July, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/- NAFR Uploaded on 15.07.2026 - 7 - Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.353 of 2019